REAL
CONSPIRACIES: TRANSFORMING THE WORLD BY SUBVERTING THE CHURCH PART 3

By Berit Kjos

November
3, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

"...we have seen
how Dr.
Walter Rauschenbusch... and the leaders of the social-action movements
in the churches decided to do away with Christian individualism and
turn to outright collectivism, using the church as their instrument....
Religion was only a means toward achieving socialism. And, like all
other false prophets who have infiltrated religion through he centuries,
[Rauschenbusch]
used a 'front' or disguise. This disguise, as we have seen, was 'The
Kingdom of God.' The Kingdom was not pictured as a spiritual society
into which men and women had to be born as individuals through a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior, but as a collectivist society
which would be brought about by... eradication
of poverty, redistribution of wealth... and 'economic justice.'"[1]
Edgar Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches.

"Rockefeller promoted
universal ecumenism by stating in December 1917... 'I see all denominational
emphasis set aside....I see the church molding the thought of the world...
I see it literally establishing the Kingdom of God on earth."[2]
Dr. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances.

The Social
Gospel of the early 20th century shifted the focus of many church
leaders from God's unchanging Truth
to the world's pliable ideals. Socialist seminary professors, pragmatic
pastors, and deluded idealists validated their visions with hand-picked
Bible verses that "fit" their social message. "Offensive" words like
sin and redemption were redefined, contextualized or ignored. No need
for the cross, since all people were considered essentially good.

Naturally, as socialist
ideals tore away at the old Biblical barriers to spiritual pluralism,
the change process accelerated. Even "conservative" pastors -- like
their purpose-driven guides -- began to view Christianity primarily
as good "deeds,
not creeds."[3]
TRANSFORMATIONAL TACTICS In Part 2, we documented
these early strategies, patterned after the Kremlin's plan for the Soviet
"church."

"Itís not just
tolerance, itís to go beyond tolerance, to principle pluralism," said
Richard Cizik, who represented the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at the prestigious 2006 Clinton
Global Initiative conference. "I would say one step even further,
which is to say partnership.... The fundamentalists have a pessimistic
view of the future and they have this perception, unlike evangelicals
and liberal Christians, that thereís an unbridgeable divide between
the believer and the unbeliever.... We donít believe that."[4]

Of course they
don't. God's Word clashes with the world's vision of pluralism!
That's why Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love
its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
the world, therefore the world hates you." John 15:19

The world readily
accepts Christian love, charity, and willingness to serve the needy.
It just can't accept the source of that love. It wants the fruit of
God's Spirit but transplants its roots into the soil of humanism. To
succeed in this assault, it fine-tunes the following strategies:

1. INFILTRATION,
THEN MASS CONVERSION TO A COUNTERFEIT SYSTEM. In Part
2, we looked at some revealing testimonies given by former Communist
leader Manning Johnson before the Committee on Un-American Activities
of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1953. Here are a few more:

"The plan was
to make the seminaries the neck of a funnel through which thousands
of potential clergymen would issue forth, carrying with them, in varying
degrees, an ideology and slant which would aid in neutralizing the
anti-Communist character of the church and also to use the clergy
to spearhead important Communist projects....

"This
policy was successful beyond even Communist expectations. The combination
of Communist clergymen, clergymen with a pro-Communist ideology, plus
thousands of clergymen who were sold the principle of considering Communist
causes as progressive... furnished the Soviet apparatus with a machine
which was used as a religious cover for the overall Communist operation."[5]

Of course, they
wouldn't call it Communism. Words like compassion and world service
felt far better.

2. COMMUNITARIAN
PARTNERSHIPS

Today, more than
a decade after the supposed "death of Communism," a more pleasing version
is rising like the mythical phoenix out of its own ashes. It's new label?
Communitarianism!
Like the old system, this upgraded version would control the masses
through universal
surveillance, personal
data files, and a hierarchy of groups or councils (originally
called soviets). It's already being marketed to the public as decentralized
leadership, sustainable development, supportive networks, and voluntary
service.

Does it sound confusing?
Here is a simple formula: Communitarian systems are based on "partnerships"
between the public sector (government), private sector (business) and
social sector (civil society, including churches). In other words, social
sector "volunteers" would serve the government (ultimately the UN agenda)
providing most of the "social services" needed for the global welfare
state.

The catch? The
private and the social sectors must conform to the standards (personal,
performance, development,
etc.) determined by the public sector (the government). Instead of owning
everything, it would just control everything. Its standards already
include "mental
health," which involve pluralistic guidelines for religion
and values."
Within this "compassionate" socialist system, Christians would no longer
be free to serve God as He leads. And this is just the beginning!

As mass movements
such as Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven PEACE
Plan enter into partnerships with the United Nations, the White
House, CFR
and other governmental and policy making institutions, they are pressed
into an ever-changing consensus pattern.[6]
To continue their determined march toward "success" (based on unconditional
relationships and measurable results) these "faith-based"
organizations bind themselves to the evolving regulation of the global
management system.

3. COLLECTIVE
THINKING

Purpose-Driven
and Church Growth movements -- as well as the secular transformational
networks driven by Peter
Senge and Peter
Drucker -- emphasize relational
vitality and collective
thinking. As Manning Johnson testified, group thinking and interdependent
relationships are powerful weapons against individual resisters and
a Bible-trained conscience:

"The Communists
have an advantage in religious organizations due to the fact that
their forces within religious groups are well organized as a totalitarian
group. This gives this destructive element a great tactical advantage
over all others in the religious organizations who deal with religion
as individuals, operating ethics on the basis of an individual conscience
before God...."

"Communist strategists
counted the effectiveness of their forces not so much on numbers alone,
but on the importance of individuals loyal to communism in key spots
where a small group can influence large numbers.... Thus, one professor
of divinity, lecturing to future clergymen, who in turn will preach
to thousands of churchgoers, is, in the long run, more dangerous than
20 Red preachers, singing the praises of communism from the pulpit....

"...if
an infiltrated body has 1 per cent Communist Party members and 9 per
cent Communist Party sympathizers, with well-rehearsed plans of action,
they can effectively control the remaining 90 per cent who act and think
on an individual basis. In the large sections of the religious field,
due to the ideological poison which has been filtered in by Communists
and pro-Communists through seminaries, the backlog of sympathizers and
mental prisoners of Socialistic ideology is greater than the 10 percent
necessary for effective control."[7]

4. SMALL GROUPS
AND THE DIALECTIC PROCESS

To "control the
remaining 90 per cent" who act and think on an individual basis, former
Communist leaders assigned all their subjects -- workers, managers,
prisoners and students -- to local "soviets" (groups or councils) where
they were trained in Georg
Hegel's dialectic process. They had to

"Share"
their thoughts

"Confess"
contrary attitudes

Write
"self-assessments" and make these statements available for group criticism

This dialectic
process is now the centerpiece
of the world's management systems. Designed to conform all minds
to a common vision and mission (purpose), it calls for ground rules
that ban divisive truths but demand tolerance for the world's corrupt
values.[8]

This process was
described in our article "Small
Groups and the Dialectic Process," which summarizes the strategies
taught in Leading Congregational Change (LCC). "This is a book you ought
to read before you change anything," wrote Rick Warren in his hearty
endorsement on the back cover.[9]

The LCC shows us
that the dialectic group doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's part of a
system that controls the planned transformation with vision-casting,
team-building, top-down standards, force
field analysis, capacity
building, and service
learning. To persuade church members to go along with the transformation,
leaders must continually create tension through crisis, thus arouse
dissatisfaction.
Forget God's call to "be
content" in Him. That doesn't fit the plan for continual change
through unceasing agitation.

This unbiblical
program follows the same Total
Quality Management model embraced by governments, corporations,
education systems, the United Nations and other organizations around
the world. Do you wonder where the Holy Spirit fits into this scheme?

Written by James
H. Furr, Mike Bonem, and Jim Herrington, the LCC was published by Jossey-Bass,
which works closely with the Peter
Drucker Foundation (renamed Leader to Leader). "We thank Rick Warren,"
it tells us, "for the opportunity to reach and refine our understanding
of congregational transformation as part of Saddleback Valley Church's
Purpose-Driven Church Conference. ... We also saw many applications
in Peter
Senge's The Fifth Discipline...."[10]

When assigned to
a group, members are encouraged to eat together, play together, serve
the community together, and do short-terms mission trips together. There's
nothing wrong with Christian togetherness. But in this context -- created
by trained facilitator/leaders -- every event becomes a practice (praxis)
session in group dialogue and "Repressive Tolerance." The latter refers
to "intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of
movements from the left." [See "Cultural
Marxism" and "Three
kinds of group relationships."][11]

RESISTING DECEPTION

Well aware of the
struggles and temptations His people would face, God gave us Scriptures
that equip us for our times. Here are three worth memorizing:

"Beware lest anyone
cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition
of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according
to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

"Woe to those who
call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light
for darkness.... Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent
in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20-21

But "thanks be
to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore,
my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable...." 1
Corinthians 15:56

Berit
Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker.
A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been
interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer
Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has
also been a guest on "Talk Back Live" (CNN) and other secular
radio and TV networks. Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and
Brave New Schools.Kjos
Ministries Web Site: http://www.crossroad.to/index.html

Socialist
seminary professors, pragmatic pastors, and deluded idealists validated
their visions with hand-picked Bible verses that "fit" their social message.
"Offensive" words like sin and redemption were redefined, contextualized
or ignored.